TfL announce Central London Grid plan and map for consultation

8 posts / 0 new
Log in or register to post comments
Last post
20 December, 2013 - 14:04
#1
onlyanotherandy
TfL announce Central London Grid plan and map for consultation

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/cycling/29172.aspx

It seems they've got the general idea. Filtered permeability is there, and quietways will have decent junctions when crossing unavoidable major junctions. I like the numbered routes - this could be better than the Dutch way of doing it (memorise a number for every single junction you pass through). I did find the wayfinding on existing CS7 pretty useful last time I was riding in London (Kingston to Central).

What comments does the Cycling Embassy want to make on this document?

Submitted by onlyanotherandy on 20 December, 2013 - 14:04
Top
20 December, 2013 - 16:53
sallyhinch

I know that Mark Treasure has been looking at it - but there's a lot going on (e.g. Nag's Head junction on the Holloway road) so it's at the back of the queue at the moment. Any thoughts from others appreciated!

Submitted by sallyhinch on 20 December, 2013 - 16:53

AKA TownMouse

Top
20 December, 2013 - 20:58
(Reply to #2)
onlyanotherandy

Edit: First time I posted, the post appeared completely blank? Typing it out again...

Lack of mention of 20mph limits where bikes and motor traffic mixes is quite jarring.

Women and the elderly are mentioned, children and the disabled are not. Freedom of movement of these people ought to be mentioned.

The statements

But most of the routes will be ‘Quietways’, using London’s matchless network of quieter side streets–along with routes through parks and on canal towpaths, which they will share with pedestrians

and

Along towpaths and in parks, improvements will be made to support safe, shared-use cycling.

The towpaths are pretty narrow and close to the water, often with no barrier. A signed numbered cycle route on these? Even moderate cycle traffic, exacerbated by mixing in pedestrians, seems dangerous and unpleasant. Subjectively unsafe. Also too slow for a core grid route.

Shared-use - what does this mean? Through the parks there is no excuse for shared use pavements, there is space to separate walkers and cycles by 45° kerbs, coloured paint and so on. Removing that kind of conflict is important for both safety and capacity.

Some of the examples are on the narrow side. Page 12 (14 of the PDF), image on the left - this? Contraflow cycling through that? Imagine a car overtaking a bike coming the other way. Not good enough. Even without the parking it would be a bit narrow in my opinion. Page 7 (9 of PDF). Would those cobbles get badly icy in winter? Riding closely between a pole and a big concrete block doesn't seem pleasant either.

I really like the mention of cycle streets closed to through-traffic. Taxis are just as space-inefficient as private cars - preferably shouldn't be allowed, cutting out through-traffic will make cycle streets faster for taxis than neighboring streets taking the full weight of all the cars.

Submitted by onlyanotherandy on 20 December, 2013 - 20:58
Top
21 December, 2013 - 08:28
(Reply to #3)
Slodger

I note the "new cyclist" that Boris wants to breed, the type in casuals and suits and going about at a more gentle pace.

Sorry to have to break it to him but my small town has nothing but these "new cyclists" already and has for decades. We need this infrastructure to get the hundreds, if not thousands of bicycles hidden in sheds and garages out and about and being useful. I'm bound to see a few new cycles flying past the house in a day or two.

As Vince Cable said, London is draining the life (and money) out the rest of us, so there will be little hope of this kind of infrastructure for anyone else. There is no need to "de-lycrafy" bicycles round here!

Just need somewhere safe to go.

Submitted by Slodger on 21 December, 2013 - 08:28
Top
21 December, 2013 - 14:56
Tom Harrison

A couple of suggestions / considerations:

A) Some of the proposed superhighways could be better positioned: e.g. The Vauxhall Bridge to Victoria route. Fast cyclists I expect will continue to use Vauxhall Bridge rd and will therefore continue to be left at risk, while slower cyclists preferring to follow the quiter route along Belgrave Rd will also lack subjective safety as the PCU is c. 8000 - i.e 4x what LCC recommended was appropriate for a route without segregation. The same is true around Farringdon Rd (and possibly elsewhere though I'm less familiar with others)

B) I can't really understand the point of the "tube lines". Imagine your starting at Vauxhall, and want to go to Kings Cross on your bike. Would you be happy to follow the signs and realise you were being taken through Green Park? Equally, the idea of "Changing lines" seems unlikely to occur as in many situations, I imagine, it would mean following two outer sides of a triangle rather than the hypotenuse.

C) Without the detail, it is hard to make specific comments, but I would briefly hint anxiety at the expected use of contraflows. I actually like contraflows when done properly, but when they are not, they can be awful - meaning you have to basically ride into vehicles and hope they give you room, or more likely just wait for them. Unless properly segregated or there is sufficient space (and vehicles cant park/"breakdown" in the way!), contraflows can put people off cycling (I'm thinking of my dad here, whose route alongside the Old Bailey in particular put him off)

Anyway, that my two pence worth for now,

Tom

 

Submitted by Tom Harrison on 21 December, 2013 - 14:56
Top
21 December, 2013 - 18:08
(Reply to #5)
riverwave

Hi Tom. I'm new to this site. Can you say what PCUs and LCC are please? thanks, Peter

Submitted by riverwave on 21 December, 2013 - 18:08
Top
22 December, 2013 - 14:12
(Reply to #6)
sallyhinch

LCC = London cycle Campaign

PCU = Passenger car unit (a measure of traffic where a car counts as 1 and a bus or lorry counts as more).

Submitted by sallyhinch on 22 December, 2013 - 14:12

AKA TownMouse

Top
23 December, 2013 - 10:59
(Reply to #7)
Tom Harrison

Sorry, wasn't sure of knowledge of people using this. It's only because I've just recently learned the acronoyms that I used them, as well!

Submitted by Tom Harrison on 23 December, 2013 - 10:59
Top
Log in or register to post comments